Welcome to FCNL's Biweekly Iraq and Region Update of February 22, 2008
Welcome to FCNL's Biweekly Iraq and Region Update of February 22, 2008
This update includes reports on…
- Iraq votes in the Senate next week,
- more backward movement in the Annapolis Arab-Israeli peace process,
- a suggestion for lobbying, and
- a selection of articles, documents and reports.
I. In Congress
Next week, the Senate will debate two bills related to Iraq: one that would cut off funding for most U.S. military operations in Iraq four months after the bill is enacted, and another that would have the president redeploy U.S. armed forces around the world in the way best suited to fight al Qaeda. But we don't expect either bill to pass, and the exercise could amount to little more than a legislative charade distracting Congress from more meaningful work to end the Iraq war.
The bill to cut off funding for the war is a reprise of what has become known as the Feingold amendment, legislation the Senate has rejected decisively three times before. The vote in May was 29 to 67, the vote in September was 28 to 70, in December it was 24-71. The current version of the bill would cut funding for the Iraq war four months after enactment, except for funds to withdraw U.S. troops, protect U.S. personnel, train Iraqis, and fight al Qaeda. Next week's vote will likely have the same result as in May, September, and last December.
The bill that addresses fighting al Qaeda takes a novel approach, combining an implicit argument that the U.S. should be focused on Afghanistan instead of Iraq (and should redeploy its forces accordingly) with an earlier (unsuccessful) attempt to limit the time of deployments and guarantee rest periods for troops. The bill would require the president to present Congress with a global strategy to fight al Qaeda; recommend deployment of U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic assets to match that strategy; and do so in a way that would not increase the deployment burden on U.S. troops. It is likely to win more support than the first bill but is also unlikely to pass. Even if it were enacted, President Bush has made clear that he believes the main front in the war on terror is Iraq, so his strategy and deployments would be unlikely to change.
The decision by Senate leaders to bring these two bills to a vote is hard to understand. Even a partisan explanation fails, since the Feingold measure will divide Democrats. The Senate should instead be working to accomplish two things that are both winnable in the 110th Congress and essential to extricating the U.S. from Iraq.
First, Congress can block an administration attempt to preempt Iraq policy decisions by the next president and Congress. Before leaving office, the Bush administration wants to conclude an agreement with the Iraqi government that would commit the U.S. to maintaining a long-term strategic presence in Iraq. The agreement would allow the U.S. to build permanent military bases in the country, similar to what the U.S. has done in Korea.
The president, secretary of state, and secretary of defense have all disavowed any intent to build permanent bases. But why is the administration seeking more funds for military construction in Iraq while the numbers of U.S. troops in the country are decreasing? And nobody in the administration has stated unequivocally that the U.S. intends to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq at some point.
Blocking this administration's attempt to tie the hands of the next is the first step this Congress can take to end the Iraq war. Congress can refuse to fund any agreement with Iraq that it does not approve, refuse to provide further funds for military construction in Iraq, and require the administration to prepare a plan for turning existing bases over to Iraqis as the U.S. withdraws.
Secondly, Congress can lay the groundwork for the comprehensive diplomatic offensive that will be needed in the next administration to end the war. Endorsing inclusive regional diplomacy now, including a mandate for talks with Iran and Syria, will open up the political space for the next administration to act.
Bills are pending in both the Senate and the House to block permanent bases and mandate a diplomatic offensive. (On permanent bases: S. 2426 and H.R. 4959; on a diplomatic offensive: S. 2130, H.R. 3797 and H.Con.Res. 288 Congress should focus its attention here.
II. Annapolis Peace Process Watch
Erosion of Settlement Freeze and Other Factors Prompt Pessimism
We reported in late January that Israel seemed to have quietly instituted a settlement freeze in the West Bank, a necessary step for the Annapolis peace process to progress. But on February 18, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that, while Israel will not construct new settlements, it will continue to build in existing settlement blocs and in the annexed area of Jerusalem. This statement echoes the Oslo-era settlement policy, which permitted large-scale settlement growth; during the Oslo era, the settlement population nearly doubled. Israel's Ha'aretz reports, meanwhile, that new construction is underway in two West Bank settlements. While the construction is technically being carried out without government approval, the government is not stepping in to halt it.
The erosion in a settlement freeze, combined with an increase in the number of Israeli army checkpoints restricting Palestinian movement in the West Bank, and the continuing blockade of Gaza with escalating Israel-Hamas violence, are prompting mounting pessimism that the peace process will succeed. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad noted on a visit to Washington last week the failure to make what he said was easily achievable progress to improve conditions on the ground. And an article in liberal Jewish Daily Forward concluded that "the renewed push for peace appears to have stalled."
III. Keep on Lobbying
The Annapolis peace process and the course of events in Iraq will depend in part on whether the U.S. moves toward cooperation or confrontation with Iran. Iranian influence on Hamas and Hizbollah will play an important role in the Arab-Israeli arena. Iranian influence on Iraqi factions will play a central role. If the U.S. does not talk to Iran, Iran has little incentive to be helpful and the prognosis for the whole region becomes grim.
A few in Congress are beginning to press for negotiations with Iran. (See, for example, Senator Dianne Feinstein's (CA) recent op-ed cited in Section IV, below.) But even many opponents of the Iraq war remain silent on Iran. Representative Barbara Lee (CA) has introduced constructive legislation calling for direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks between the U.S. and Iran. Urge your representative to co-sponsor the Iran Diplomatic Accountability Act (H.R. 5056) as a way to build support for talking to Iran.
IV. Articles, Documents, and Reports
Senator Feinstein Urges U.S.-Iran Talks
"Now is the moment for a bold U.S. diplomatic move to begin direct official talks with Iranian officials," California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote in a recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle. "Simply put," she said, "isolating a country doesn't work. It only promotes a deterioration of stability and increases threat. When nations don't talk, there is increased possibility of conflict."
Neocon Think Tanker Also Calls on U.S to Offer Iran Talks
American Enterprise Institute resident fellow and former CIA officer Reuel Marc Gerecht, has also concluded that the U.S. should propose unconditional talks to Iran. But Gerecht argues in a New York Times op-ed that "the best reason to offer to begin talks with Tehran is that the regime will almost certainly refuse any offer to normalize relations." And, he says, making the offer to negotiate "is something that must be checked off before the next president could unleash the Air Force and the Navy" against Iran.
Israeli Analyst Views U.S.-Iran Talks as Essential Next Step
Yossi Alpher, a former senior adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv, argues in an article in the Jewish Daily Forward that the U.S. and Israel should abandon efforts at regime change in Iran and that the U.S should engage in a genuine dialogue with Tehran before resorting to military action. Israel, Alpher says, "should not fear an American-Iranian dialogue."
U.S. Institute of Peace Reports on Lebanon Crisis
A new briefing, "Facing the Abyss: Lebanon's Deadly Political Stalemate," by Mona Yacoubian of the U.S. Institute of Peace offers a concise overview of Lebanon's current internal problems and regional entanglements. Achieving stability in Lebanon, the author says, will require "progress resolving key regional conflicts (Arab-Israeli, U.S.-Iran) that are often played out in Lebanon…"